winter-owned hasn't been around for a while. I should imagine he got that quote from some version of the bible though, or more likely, from the internet somewhere, I often find that people who enjoy talking about this horse-shit don't bother to RTFM.

by tsotavitsi on Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:34 pm ([msg=75034]see Re: If God is real he must hate us.[/msg])

Dahaar wrote:I don't believe in the concept of hell. And you can be a good Christian without it.Yes, it does say, that God is a jealous and angry god, but that's the old testament. The new testament shows him as loving and forgiving and everybody will come to heaven eventually. But that doesn't imply that we can just do what we want on earth.

I chose to quote this, because it is one of the modes of thought common among religious believers that I find most interesting. Christianity has moved far away from its early focus on hell; where once God was wrath and retribution, he is now Love. Christianity has a strong history of catering to the "needs" of its followers. Take the New World for example. With the collective fear of the inexplicable mysteries of the natural world, the concept of hell was in full swing. With famine, hostile natives, disease, wild animals, etc. the focus of day-to-day life, sermons and approaches to proselytizing played upon this by portraying God as a force more terrifying than any encountered in this "shadow life," that is, if one did not commit oneself fully to him. Think of Jonathan Edwards, "Sinners in the hand of an Angry God," and his contemporaries.

What was the function of this? Well, on the one hand, it had significant shock value. Congregation members were largely uneducated, awe-struck people doing the best they could to survive. Introduce a force like the one Edwards was capable of presenting, and it was certain to have an effect, more importantly, an explanation (more on this later). Secondly, it did something for these people, that we should be familiar with today. Humanities obsession with "the apocalypse" is far reaching. From Revelations, to the recent Mayan calender phenomenon, it does appear that collectively, we are beginning to take these things less seriously. But we still entertain the idea; it is deeply rooted in our psyche. Blockbuster movies are great at representing this, mirroring the collective anxieties of the age: alien invasion, global weather shifts, nuclear war, and there are still those dwindling groups waiting for the second coming...It isn't entirely clear what humanity's obsession with its own destruction actually is, though one explanation might be that it enhances our daily life in a sort of Heideggarian, being-toward-death kind of way. Entertaining this explanation, it is easier to see why the "fire and brimstone" sermons may have been more effective in a less-scientific, more survival-based stage in our development.

And, now... In an age of science, after major wars, and daily exposure to atrocities committed to humans by humans, after athiest existentialist thinkers such as Nietzsche, Sarte, Heidegger, etc. it is easier to understand why our apocalyptic visions, while not fading, have taken on a more scientific edge. Likewise, religion has become most effective (in terms of the business model it has always been, that of recruiting believers) by offering a respite from a constant barrage of these "worldly" problems. In a sometimes jaded society, bordering on nihilism, God needs to be love, escape, and acceptance. And scholars have always bent over backwards to interpret scripture to suit the needs of the masses. It isn't as if the New Testament wasn't available during the age of fire and brimstone; only the focus and interpretation has changed. And so now we have a lot of heaven, and little hell.

It is interesting to view the development of Christianity in a holistic sense. The questions then become, is scripture forever malleable? Is science a rebuttal to the religious debate, or is it simply a new form of "religion," a sort of belief system defined by faith--not in a God in this case, but in indecipherable mathematics which must be debated, with portions being created as developed, all to explain something the lay person will never grasp, and therefore never have a chance to accept on anything other than faith?

by brutal_hacker on Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:13 pm ([msg=75230]see Re: If God is real he must hate us.[/msg])

LoneFury4590 wrote:@edone_automaton oh, thanks for letting me know xP well I've never read the bible (since I'm a Muslim) x) And I don't see it as authentic (there are too many versions of it)

Well it kind of had to be updated to fit in with modern times. Also ones an old testament and ones the new has a lot of followers just like the quran which if i recall some sections of the Muslim religion do take parts of the book with a pinch of salt and do alter it to a modern day feel where as others take it word for word. Don't forget how old the book is just like if you told your child a story and in turn they told there child a story and so on and so on then 200 years down the line that child wrote a book about it missing out key facts due to "Chinese whispers". The book is not law its just more of a understanding of what life was like back then and what good we should do towards man.

All religion is very very very similar with small differences. Look at it like this the main religions all have prophets and a god that believes in very similar things. Don't steal, don't hurt one another. Some religions are more forceful than others but that's just life. I could go on and on about similarities but it may offend and that's not what this message is about.

Personally I believe in something dunno if its a bloke on a cloud but its something and when I die judgement will be made on me. Now that does not effect my daily life if i do wrong guilt will be the judge of that. I just don't understand why people go so crazy over religion. We all know that a religious war will end all wars.